southsider2k5

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 08:15 AM) But you'll note...it wasn't directed at job creation at all. It was directed at winning the war. Because wars don't require any kind of industrial output or anything... Intended or not, war spending in WWII was the very definition of stimulus spending. There was no alternative energy or voting programs being put into place. This was very literal job creation because of what was being asked. It was also completely temporary, because when it was done, it was done.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 07:54 AM) eh, look at his whole career with the Sox - his HR numbers would go up, the AVG would go down, then it would go vice versa. Looks like what most players do, they adjust. He went higher AVG in those years. Nothing in his career shouts PED's, where all his numbers across the board suddenly skyrocketed. Besides, the reason I love these quotes isn't because Fisk didn't do this stuff. I think he probably didn't, but he may have. Its that he's willing to speak honestly, instead of the B.S. we get from a lot of current players. He wasn't even talking about himself anyway. though I did detect a hint of jealousy. And this whole idea that "they all did it" is just silly. Just as silly as thinking none of them did. Some did, some didn't. I know. I just found it ironic that he talks about guys who have their best seasons at an old age, but he had his best season at a pretty old age, especially for someone who catches.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 07:07 AM) I love that conservative talking point. WWII was MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND EMPLOYMENT. Tell me, why is it that massive government spending on tanks and soldiers, which are classic "broken window fallacy" examples, can cause a recovery but massive government spending on other things like infrastructure can't spur growth? It was also the very definition of a stimulus package. Very pointed and TEMPORARY spending.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 07:44 AM) This quake was 35 miles NNW of PAP, and was 6.1. Since it was like 60 miles from where the previous quakes were, is that really an aftershock? Seems like a different event. In any case, they are saying they can't tell how much new damage there is from this one. That might be because there was so little left to damage. But what it might do, is cause further damage in areas further north, that weren't as badly hit by the first quakes. Its like its spreading out. Ugh. It is all considered the same event.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:59 PM) In my opinion (of course) it's because the Democrats don't really stand for anything. Welcome to the dark side... Seriously, though, it does say that the country is more conservative then you would like to admit - again, that's my opinion. Which the Dems know, and it is why they aren't pushing their agenda harder to risk the inevitable backlash.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 07:14 PM) Carlton Fisk has to be my LEAST favorite Sox of all time. To me, he comes across as a pompous, arrogant jerk. He's a good representative of the sox all right.... the RED SOX, which is the team that I'll always identify him with. Oh yeah, I went to high school with his son too, and he's a tool just like his old man... Nice to know it isn't personal or anything...

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:48 PM) JPM did, didn't it? Goldman is just ... Goldman. And yes, JP Morgan bank has been around forever, except now it is JP Morgan Chase bank, minus the JP Morgan.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:46 PM) Why? Goldman, JPM, etc., didn't. Not in a traditional sense, but they have stuff through their brokerage arms where they have banking functionality.

I will say this much. I HATE pay/go. They need to be conscious of the budget and all, but that idea is just stupid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:40 PM) Bank Holding Company, you mean. Well, you need the bank first.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:38 PM) THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT's how it works. Hence founding of the southsider2k5 bank.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:36 PM) There's 2 possibilities. They could easily double down and actually decide to create a better bill, after realizing that it's their own people who are turned off completely right now. Or this could just as easily kill the President's agenda. Which is amazing. They own the white house and the Congress, and they are afraid to use it to do anything they want. They seem to be perfectly content to just sit back and blame republicans instead of actually using their position of power to actually do anything.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:35 PM) I don't think that's what happened to Goldman is it? Or force the government to give you billions...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:34 PM) Support for having a head at the TSA is lukewarm at best. I was going for health care there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:30 PM) But if it hurts their profitability to not break the law, isn't it their moral obligation to break the law? Then they just close down.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:32 PM) How big of a stink would you make if they tried to change the rules so that 1 Senator could no longer block those nominations? They're not actually filibustered, that's a single Senator bringing a hold. The only way to stop that would be to change the rules. Like I said on health care, I really wonder why they are afraid to take those battles to the public.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:28 PM) BS. It's because your heroes won't let them pass anything. The Dems are too scared to change the Senate Rules, and the Republicans are using them to the extreme. They are also too scared to fight the Repubs in the trenches on this. I really wonder if it is because the support for it is lukewarm at best, and they know they aren't winning the public battle either, so they don't have any political capital to take the fight to the streets anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:27 PM) I'll agree on that. Between getting every Dem disappointed in the Health Care bill by not really fighting for a good bill, pissing off every Republican by attempting to do anything at all, and 10% unemployment, yeah. They shot themselves in the foot by letting a few people hold health care hostage for too long in their own party. I really wonder if the window might be gone now.

Judging by how long they have been trying to limit his innings, this isn't a thing from just this last year.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) If anyone is interested at all (and it'd be a great help), I've started a new blog as part of my Sports Marketing class. I'll basically be posting thoughts about current events in sports, and there will be a lot of videos and stuff about the good and bad of broadcasting. There is sure to be a lot about Hawk... http://slavssportsworld.blogspot.com/ I'll be looking forward to the feature piece on myself in the near future

So is he saying we should be suspect of his 1985 career best power numbers season at the age of 37?

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) i think that goes back to my lack of understanding. short term, real time, you effect both the income and expense level when govt lays off employees. long term, if that said employee gets employed elsewhere, in the private sector, then your income level rebounds while the expense level stays reduced. to answer your question, why does every recovery lead to higher levels of unemployment... i'm not sure if that is horribly true. In 1968 the unemployment rate (3.4-3.7%) was nearly identical to the unemployment rate in 2000. (3.8-4.1%) The 1989 recovery (the bottom of the curve from the 1983 recession) had lower unemployment rates than 1979 from the 1975 recession. Actually that wasn't what I said. The periods of recovery are more and more jobless. Unemployment rates do nothing to disprove that as a person off of work for six months isn't in the listings, which does nothing to prove that right or wrong.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 03:22 PM) Surely you are not saying that is the fault of increasing scope of government. That's an enormous stretch. Also, is it even true? I'm all for shifting jobs from public to private, as i think its healthier for the economy in the long run. I just think the association you make here is a huge leap. You are damned right I am. There is no coincidence that the more money is drained from the private sector, and the smaller the percentage of people paying taxes gets, the less jobs that gets created by those same sectors.

The story has always been that they had been trying to work out a trade to get him, and they couldn't come to an agreement. Knowing the way Williams deals, I would bet money he was offering prospects in order to get TOR to put some cash into the deal. The question isn't whether we wanted Rios, it is if we wanted to give up good minor leaguers to get TOR to potentially throw in some cash, or if we would have been better in the long run getting him for nothing and paying full price.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) so explain again, how in this environment, a state would see economic growth by laying off an employee and losing any/all tax revenue associated with it? If the argument is shifting jobs from public to private, then that certainly makes sense. However in an environment of little private growth, I'm lost with the explanation. It is very, very simple. More people would have jobs in the long run. Let me ask you this. Why do you think every recovery gets more and more jobless?